porina

Was this an advertised feature/function? The article says it was a broken "promise" but with the (very limited) Google searching I did I never really found any promise from Asus regarding this.
 
I think it is also worth noting that he didn't win the court case. Asus decided to settle.
Basically, instead of actually taking this to court Asus just gave him a refund. It would probably have been more expensive for Asus to hire a lawyer and have that person represent them in court than to just pay the guy who tried to sue them. The total settlement was less than 1000 dollars.

When it is faster/cheaper/more efficient/widely supported. Not all are required at the same time but the more boxes it ticks, the more possible it may become.
 
The question at the end of the day is what benefit is there to a user, and at what cost? Apple's M series chips are great - within their niche. Targeted wins are possible, but to truly take over it'll need a broad win without relying on specific areas to look good.

AI stuff? The 3090 could be from people who need big memory but can't afford 4090.

Consider this pre-testing to a wider IPC test. I ran Cinebench R15 in various configurations on 3 CPUs representing 3 different generations.
12100F - Alder Lake, Intel 7 (formerly 10 Enhanced SuperFin) 11700k - Rocket Lake, 14nm 7980XE - Skylake-X, 14nm Rocket Lake was the first desktop generation past Skylake architecture even though it was still made on 14nm process, and Alder Lake finally took desktop beyond 14nm nodes.
 
Why use Cinebench R15? Mainly because it is well known, and as older software it does not make use of AVX instructions so takes away an element of complication. It is known to not be much affected by memory performance which is good if I'm focusing on the CPU cores itself. I note the score, reported CPU power consumption, and where possible the CPU clock. In some scenarios with a power limit, the clock varied too much to get a good value. Skylake-X here should be near enough a substitute for regular Skylake and derivatives (Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake, Comet Lake).
 
Note this is "quick testing" and I didn't try to eliminate all variables and check of repeatability beyond doing a minimum of 2 runs each.
 
Relative performance (IPC best case):
Skylake-X: 52.2 points/core/GHz
Rocket Lake: 63.3 points/core/GHz, +21% relative to SKX
Alder Lake: 72.7 points/core/GHz, +39% relative to SKX, +15% relative to RKL
 
Relative efficiency:
This is where it gets really complicated. It depends on where on the efficiency curve you compare, and these are wildly differing CPU configurations. I used a metric of points/W for comparison.
 
7980XE unlimited (188W): 16.6 points/W
7980XE turbo off (117W): 20.9 points/W
11700k unlimited (183W): 12.7 points/W
11700k turbo off (88W): 20.4 points/W
11700k 45W limit: 22.5 points/W
11700k 25W limit: 23.1 points/W
12100F unlimited (56W): 20.3 points/W
12100F 45W limit: 23.9 points/W
12100F 25W limit: 30.2 points/W
 
I decided against testing the 7980XE at lower powers since it was reporting around 45W usage at idle! 
 
We still have different core configurations. I tried adjusting the 11700k further, running it with only 4 cores enabled (4c8t), and also running it with all cores and HT off (8c8t).
 
11700k 4 cores 8 threads
125W limit: 10.1 points/W
45W limit: 18.3 points/W (Alder Lake 30% more efficient)
25W limit: 18.6 points/W (Alder Lake 62% more efficient)
As generally expected, this is much worse than running with 8 cores. While each core has more power available, it runs in a less efficient area. Alder Lake does seem to scale better at lower powers. Note although is is 4 core vs 4 core, by disabling 4 cores of Rocket Lake it may not scale exactly. Intel did not make a 4 core Rocket Lake.
 
11700k 8 cores 8 threads (HT off)
Unlimited (159W): 11.1 points/W
45W limit: 18.5 points/W
Cinebench R15 is on the higher end of HT scaling workloads. For a 45W power limit, it is doing 18% less work than with HT on. While it was not a part of my testing this time, previously I've seen typically around 30% more throughput at the same clock with HT, implying the difference here is due to the extra power consumed by HT. Arrow Lake is rumoured to not have HT so it will be interesting to see how that goes overall.
 
Overall we do see a bit more efficiency from the newer process, especially at lower powers. There is also a clear improvement in IPC between the generations. Of course, this is very limited in only looking at Cinebench R15, and I hope to expand this to wider workloads over time.

That might explain an investor presentation they did earlier this week. I wrote more about it at link below, although I focused on the tech more than the financials.
 
Without looking at the latest results, they did say they were reorganising how they're reporting foundry results. Before, product design teams ate some of the costs, but now foundry is more separated. Be aware it might not be a like for like comparison. They've been doing a lot to get their fabs up to speed and it isn't cheap. Getting the newer nodes going will save them money so that "loss" today is investing for the future. The more you spend, the more you save. Wait, wrong company 😄 
 
In short, I don't feel this is significant at all as long as it puts them in the right place going forwards.
 
 

If a game has a dedicated enough fan base, even if most of game code is server side, the fans can rebuild it from scratch if they have to, to keep it alive.
 
An old example from a simpler time it may be, but. Westwood Studios Earth & Beyond was/is a space based MMO, a spiritual predecessor to Eve Online.
It like games like Blizzards WoW, and D3, had the vast majority of its game code server side, the client was non functional without it.
When EA (fk EA !) bought out Westwood studios, for the sole purpose of owning the C&C franchise, they immediately shutdown Earth & Beyond.
it took many ..MANY years, but a small dedicated group of fans rebuilt the game from scratch using what little info they could get there hands on, and now you can play the fully functional game online again.
 
It would have been nice if this wasnt necessary as the player base most likely would have been much bigger in the years following the official servers demise.
And while games that are good enough and popular enough can always be 'resurrected' with enough dedication from talented fans, forcing publishers to release the code neccesery to maintain private servers or otherwise allow client side solo play is a much desired and needed thing, im all for this.

Consider this pre-testing to a wider IPC test. I ran Cinebench R15 in various configurations on 3 CPUs representing 3 different generations.
12100F - Alder Lake, Intel 7 (formerly 10 Enhanced SuperFin) 11700k - Rocket Lake, 14nm 7980XE - Skylake-X, 14nm Rocket Lake was the first desktop generation past Skylake architecture even though it was still made on 14nm process, and Alder Lake finally took desktop beyond 14nm nodes.
 
Why use Cinebench R15? Mainly because it is well known, and as older software it does not make use of AVX instructions so takes away an element of complication. It is known to not be much affected by memory performance which is good if I'm focusing on the CPU cores itself. I note the score, reported CPU power consumption, and where possible the CPU clock. In some scenarios with a power limit, the clock varied too much to get a good value. Skylake-X here should be near enough a substitute for regular Skylake and derivatives (Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake, Comet Lake).
 
Note this is "quick testing" and I didn't try to eliminate all variables and check of repeatability beyond doing a minimum of 2 runs each.
 
Relative performance (IPC best case):
Skylake-X: 52.2 points/core/GHz
Rocket Lake: 63.3 points/core/GHz, +21% relative to SKX
Alder Lake: 72.7 points/core/GHz, +39% relative to SKX, +15% relative to RKL
 
Relative efficiency:
This is where it gets really complicated. It depends on where on the efficiency curve you compare, and these are wildly differing CPU configurations. I used a metric of points/W for comparison.
 
7980XE unlimited (188W): 16.6 points/W
7980XE turbo off (117W): 20.9 points/W
11700k unlimited (183W): 12.7 points/W
11700k turbo off (88W): 20.4 points/W
11700k 45W limit: 22.5 points/W
11700k 25W limit: 23.1 points/W
12100F unlimited (56W): 20.3 points/W
12100F 45W limit: 23.9 points/W
12100F 25W limit: 30.2 points/W
 
I decided against testing the 7980XE at lower powers since it was reporting around 45W usage at idle! 
 
We still have different core configurations. I tried adjusting the 11700k further, running it with only 4 cores enabled (4c8t), and also running it with all cores and HT off (8c8t).
 
11700k 4 cores 8 threads
125W limit: 10.1 points/W
45W limit: 18.3 points/W (Alder Lake 30% more efficient)
25W limit: 18.6 points/W (Alder Lake 62% more efficient)
As generally expected, this is much worse than running with 8 cores. While each core has more power available, it runs in a less efficient area. Alder Lake does seem to scale better at lower powers. Note although is is 4 core vs 4 core, by disabling 4 cores of Rocket Lake it may not scale exactly. Intel did not make a 4 core Rocket Lake.
 
11700k 8 cores 8 threads (HT off)
Unlimited (159W): 11.1 points/W
45W limit: 18.5 points/W
Cinebench R15 is on the higher end of HT scaling workloads. For a 45W power limit, it is doing 18% less work than with HT on. While it was not a part of my testing this time, previously I've seen typically around 30% more throughput at the same clock with HT, implying the difference here is due to the extra power consumed by HT. Arrow Lake is rumoured to not have HT so it will be interesting to see how that goes overall.
 
Overall we do see a bit more efficiency from the newer process, especially at lower powers. There is also a clear improvement in IPC between the generations. Of course, this is very limited in only looking at Cinebench R15, and I hope to expand this to wider workloads over time.

Consider this pre-testing to a wider IPC test. I ran Cinebench R15 in various configurations on 3 CPUs representing 3 different generations.
12100F - Alder Lake, Intel 7 (formerly 10 Enhanced SuperFin) 11700k - Rocket Lake, 14nm 7980XE - Skylake-X, 14nm Rocket Lake was the first desktop generation past Skylake architecture even though it was still made on 14nm process, and Alder Lake finally took desktop beyond 14nm nodes.
 
Why use Cinebench R15? Mainly because it is well known, and as older software it does not make use of AVX instructions so takes away an element of complication. It is known to not be much affected by memory performance which is good if I'm focusing on the CPU cores itself. I note the score, reported CPU power consumption, and where possible the CPU clock. In some scenarios with a power limit, the clock varied too much to get a good value. Skylake-X here should be near enough a substitute for regular Skylake and derivatives (Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake, Comet Lake).
 
Note this is "quick testing" and I didn't try to eliminate all variables and check of repeatability beyond doing a minimum of 2 runs each.
 
Relative performance (IPC best case):
Skylake-X: 52.2 points/core/GHz
Rocket Lake: 63.3 points/core/GHz, +21% relative to SKX
Alder Lake: 72.7 points/core/GHz, +39% relative to SKX, +15% relative to RKL
 
Relative efficiency:
This is where it gets really complicated. It depends on where on the efficiency curve you compare, and these are wildly differing CPU configurations. I used a metric of points/W for comparison.
 
7980XE unlimited (188W): 16.6 points/W
7980XE turbo off (117W): 20.9 points/W
11700k unlimited (183W): 12.7 points/W
11700k turbo off (88W): 20.4 points/W
11700k 45W limit: 22.5 points/W
11700k 25W limit: 23.1 points/W
12100F unlimited (56W): 20.3 points/W
12100F 45W limit: 23.9 points/W
12100F 25W limit: 30.2 points/W
 
I decided against testing the 7980XE at lower powers since it was reporting around 45W usage at idle! 
 
We still have different core configurations. I tried adjusting the 11700k further, running it with only 4 cores enabled (4c8t), and also running it with all cores and HT off (8c8t).
 
11700k 4 cores 8 threads
125W limit: 10.1 points/W
45W limit: 18.3 points/W (Alder Lake 30% more efficient)
25W limit: 18.6 points/W (Alder Lake 62% more efficient)
As generally expected, this is much worse than running with 8 cores. While each core has more power available, it runs in a less efficient area. Alder Lake does seem to scale better at lower powers. Note although is is 4 core vs 4 core, by disabling 4 cores of Rocket Lake it may not scale exactly. Intel did not make a 4 core Rocket Lake.
 
11700k 8 cores 8 threads (HT off)
Unlimited (159W): 11.1 points/W
45W limit: 18.5 points/W
Cinebench R15 is on the higher end of HT scaling workloads. For a 45W power limit, it is doing 18% less work than with HT on. While it was not a part of my testing this time, previously I've seen typically around 30% more throughput at the same clock with HT, implying the difference here is due to the extra power consumed by HT. Arrow Lake is rumoured to not have HT so it will be interesting to see how that goes overall.
 
Overall we do see a bit more efficiency from the newer process, especially at lower powers. There is also a clear improvement in IPC between the generations. Of course, this is very limited in only looking at Cinebench R15, and I hope to expand this to wider workloads over time.

Consider this pre-testing to a wider IPC test. I ran Cinebench R15 in various configurations on 3 CPUs representing 3 different generations.
12100F - Alder Lake, Intel 7 (formerly 10 Enhanced SuperFin) 11700k - Rocket Lake, 14nm 7980XE - Skylake-X, 14nm Rocket Lake was the first desktop generation past Skylake architecture even though it was still made on 14nm process, and Alder Lake finally took desktop beyond 14nm nodes.
 
Why use Cinebench R15? Mainly because it is well known, and as older software it does not make use of AVX instructions so takes away an element of complication. It is known to not be much affected by memory performance which is good if I'm focusing on the CPU cores itself. I note the score, reported CPU power consumption, and where possible the CPU clock. In some scenarios with a power limit, the clock varied too much to get a good value. Skylake-X here should be near enough a substitute for regular Skylake and derivatives (Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake, Comet Lake).
 
Note this is "quick testing" and I didn't try to eliminate all variables and check of repeatability beyond doing a minimum of 2 runs each.
 
Relative performance (IPC best case):
Skylake-X: 52.2 points/core/GHz
Rocket Lake: 63.3 points/core/GHz, +21% relative to SKX
Alder Lake: 72.7 points/core/GHz, +39% relative to SKX, +15% relative to RKL
 
Relative efficiency:
This is where it gets really complicated. It depends on where on the efficiency curve you compare, and these are wildly differing CPU configurations. I used a metric of points/W for comparison.
 
7980XE unlimited (188W): 16.6 points/W
7980XE turbo off (117W): 20.9 points/W
11700k unlimited (183W): 12.7 points/W
11700k turbo off (88W): 20.4 points/W
11700k 45W limit: 22.5 points/W
11700k 25W limit: 23.1 points/W
12100F unlimited (56W): 20.3 points/W
12100F 45W limit: 23.9 points/W
12100F 25W limit: 30.2 points/W
 
I decided against testing the 7980XE at lower powers since it was reporting around 45W usage at idle! 
 
We still have different core configurations. I tried adjusting the 11700k further, running it with only 4 cores enabled (4c8t), and also running it with all cores and HT off (8c8t).
 
11700k 4 cores 8 threads
125W limit: 10.1 points/W
45W limit: 18.3 points/W (Alder Lake 30% more efficient)
25W limit: 18.6 points/W (Alder Lake 62% more efficient)
As generally expected, this is much worse than running with 8 cores. While each core has more power available, it runs in a less efficient area. Alder Lake does seem to scale better at lower powers. Note although is is 4 core vs 4 core, by disabling 4 cores of Rocket Lake it may not scale exactly. Intel did not make a 4 core Rocket Lake.
 
11700k 8 cores 8 threads (HT off)
Unlimited (159W): 11.1 points/W
45W limit: 18.5 points/W
Cinebench R15 is on the higher end of HT scaling workloads. For a 45W power limit, it is doing 18% less work than with HT on. While it was not a part of my testing this time, previously I've seen typically around 30% more throughput at the same clock with HT, implying the difference here is due to the extra power consumed by HT. Arrow Lake is rumoured to not have HT so it will be interesting to see how that goes overall.
 
Overall we do see a bit more efficiency from the newer process, especially at lower powers. There is also a clear improvement in IPC between the generations. Of course, this is very limited in only looking at Cinebench R15, and I hope to expand this to wider workloads over time.

Consider this pre-testing to a wider IPC test. I ran Cinebench R15 in various configurations on 3 CPUs representing 3 different generations.
12100F - Alder Lake, Intel 7 (formerly 10 Enhanced SuperFin) 11700k - Rocket Lake, 14nm 7980XE - Skylake-X, 14nm Rocket Lake was the first desktop generation past Skylake architecture even though it was still made on 14nm process, and Alder Lake finally took desktop beyond 14nm nodes.
 
Why use Cinebench R15? Mainly because it is well known, and as older software it does not make use of AVX instructions so takes away an element of complication. It is known to not be much affected by memory performance which is good if I'm focusing on the CPU cores itself. I note the score, reported CPU power consumption, and where possible the CPU clock. In some scenarios with a power limit, the clock varied too much to get a good value. Skylake-X here should be near enough a substitute for regular Skylake and derivatives (Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake, Comet Lake).
 
Note this is "quick testing" and I didn't try to eliminate all variables and check of repeatability beyond doing a minimum of 2 runs each.
 
Relative performance (IPC best case):
Skylake-X: 52.2 points/core/GHz
Rocket Lake: 63.3 points/core/GHz, +21% relative to SKX
Alder Lake: 72.7 points/core/GHz, +39% relative to SKX, +15% relative to RKL
 
Relative efficiency:
This is where it gets really complicated. It depends on where on the efficiency curve you compare, and these are wildly differing CPU configurations. I used a metric of points/W for comparison.
 
7980XE unlimited (188W): 16.6 points/W
7980XE turbo off (117W): 20.9 points/W
11700k unlimited (183W): 12.7 points/W
11700k turbo off (88W): 20.4 points/W
11700k 45W limit: 22.5 points/W
11700k 25W limit: 23.1 points/W
12100F unlimited (56W): 20.3 points/W
12100F 45W limit: 23.9 points/W
12100F 25W limit: 30.2 points/W
 
I decided against testing the 7980XE at lower powers since it was reporting around 45W usage at idle! 
 
We still have different core configurations. I tried adjusting the 11700k further, running it with only 4 cores enabled (4c8t), and also running it with all cores and HT off (8c8t).
 
11700k 4 cores 8 threads
125W limit: 10.1 points/W
45W limit: 18.3 points/W (Alder Lake 30% more efficient)
25W limit: 18.6 points/W (Alder Lake 62% more efficient)
As generally expected, this is much worse than running with 8 cores. While each core has more power available, it runs in a less efficient area. Alder Lake does seem to scale better at lower powers. Note although is is 4 core vs 4 core, by disabling 4 cores of Rocket Lake it may not scale exactly. Intel did not make a 4 core Rocket Lake.
 
11700k 8 cores 8 threads (HT off)
Unlimited (159W): 11.1 points/W
45W limit: 18.5 points/W
Cinebench R15 is on the higher end of HT scaling workloads. For a 45W power limit, it is doing 18% less work than with HT on. While it was not a part of my testing this time, previously I've seen typically around 30% more throughput at the same clock with HT, implying the difference here is due to the extra power consumed by HT. Arrow Lake is rumoured to not have HT so it will be interesting to see how that goes overall.
 
Overall we do see a bit more efficiency from the newer process, especially at lower powers. There is also a clear improvement in IPC between the generations. Of course, this is very limited in only looking at Cinebench R15, and I hope to expand this to wider workloads over time.

Financial market analysts don't know their asses from their elbows when it comes to tech, even "tech focused" ones. Intel making a massive loss in the lead up to new technology and products is a huge sign of good potential and that's why I would be recommending to invest because you'll miss the boat otherwise. That is obviously not actual financial advice but if you actually know the sector and the technology developments happening then nobody knows better than yourself. I mean that is exactly how I 3x-5x my money on AMD stock, I knew Zen was coming soon, I knew it was tracking rather well and the only direction the stock was going to go was up. Intel is a little different since it's stock value isn't in the actual gutter heh.

I would have been more surprised if Intel announced profits for their Foundry division. They are investing heavily into catching up with TSMC manufacturing, which is fiendishly expensive, even with the generous USA and EU government handout they have been getting.
 
Intel says the 18A process is on track, which is really great news. Intel is leaving behind the notorious 10nm forever delay.
 
I'm more surprised that the investors have been caught by surprise by the news... Isn't the market supposed to "price in" expected news? That's like... their whole job!

Operating loss really isn't that surprising or against what Intel has been saying. They are investing in a lot of new things and expanding, you have to spend money first before you can make it and jointly customers.
 
People too easily forget, Intel silicon fabrication was the industry benchmark for so long, none of the knowledge and talent has left.

That might explain an investor presentation they did earlier this week. I wrote more about it at link below, although I focused on the tech more than the financials.
 
Without looking at the latest results, they did say they were reorganising how they're reporting foundry results. Before, product design teams ate some of the costs, but now foundry is more separated. Be aware it might not be a like for like comparison. They've been doing a lot to get their fabs up to speed and it isn't cheap. Getting the newer nodes going will save them money so that "loss" today is investing for the future. The more you spend, the more you save. Wait, wrong company 😄 
 
In short, I don't feel this is significant at all as long as it puts them in the right place going forwards.
 
 

https://morethanmoore.substack.com/p/intel-foundry-realigning-the-money
 
Intel held an investor focused webinar on 2 April but there are some interesting bits of tech-related info from it.
 
18A will ramp in 2025, counting significant revenue 2026. This is similar to TSMC, where they'll introduce a node and it can be ball park a year before it hits High Volume Manufacturing (HVM).
 

This slide shows where Intel sees its process vs competition at the time of offering, not based on like for like node. If you wonder where 4 and 20A are, they're not listed since they're primarily used internally. These listed ones will be the ones offered for anyone to use.
 
7 is rated as behind because if you look at AMD and nvidia, they're already using N5 class for consumer products. 3 closes the gap, but by the time Intel shifts volume of it, TSMC has been shipping N3 for some time. 18A is where they think they'll match or take the lead and clearly pass with 14A.
 
Intel's next desktop gen CPU core dies will be made on 20A, which can be seen as an early version of 18A, so that should at least be generally competitive going against Zen 5 which is expected to be on TSMC 3nm class.
 
It is interesting to note they see costs going down as we move to the newer EUV nodes. Don't expect that to mean cheaper products though, as it'll more likely be used to restore their profitability which isn't so strong at the moment.
 
Intel thinks they're at a peak on external wafers (TSMC?) and expect to bring more back internally going forwards. Currently around 30% of wafers are external.
 
Of course, all this depends on Intel executing to their plan. They are getting access to ASML's newest toys first so they can get a lead against TSMC from that. TSMC's head has previously played down Intel's claimed future performance.

That might explain an investor presentation they did earlier this week. I wrote more about it at link below, although I focused on the tech more than the financials.
 
Without looking at the latest results, they did say they were reorganising how they're reporting foundry results. Before, product design teams ate some of the costs, but now foundry is more separated. Be aware it might not be a like for like comparison. They've been doing a lot to get their fabs up to speed and it isn't cheap. Getting the newer nodes going will save them money so that "loss" today is investing for the future. The more you spend, the more you save. Wait, wrong company 😄 
 
In short, I don't feel this is significant at all as long as it puts them in the right place going forwards.
 
 

That might explain an investor presentation they did earlier this week. I wrote more about it at link below, although I focused on the tech more than the financials.
 
Without looking at the latest results, they did say they were reorganising how they're reporting foundry results. Before, product design teams ate some of the costs, but now foundry is more separated. Be aware it might not be a like for like comparison. They've been doing a lot to get their fabs up to speed and it isn't cheap. Getting the newer nodes going will save them money so that "loss" today is investing for the future. The more you spend, the more you save. Wait, wrong company 😄 
 
In short, I don't feel this is significant at all as long as it puts them in the right place going forwards.
 
 

The problem I have with scan and go at least at Meijer, I have to wait for a clerk as they have to scan 4 items at random from the order. So I’m stuck there with a thumb up my ass waiting as the clerks are helping out other shoppers at self checkout. 

The grocery store I use allows the use of the store supplied handheld devices like those shown by Needfuldoer earlier, or you can use their app on your own phone. When I first started using my phone, it was a pretty horrible ergonomic experience. I soon switched to the store provided devices. They have a holder for them on the trolleys, and they're built for that single purpose.
 
Could the phone app be compromised? Maybe, but they could do something similar to banking apps which generally refuse to run on jailbroken phones. Also the stores do random checks on shoppers using this function. It isn't a full rescan but a sampling of items to make sure they're all scanned. Don't think you can easily hide things at the bottom. They dig as well as pick from the top. If you're up to no good, how much risk are you willing to take? I'm sure the stores know how much they're losing due to theft and their security is appropriately scaled as such.

So it was powered by AI! (Anonymous Indians.)
 
Sounds a lot like the "Scan It!" system Stop & Shop and Giant have had for at least 20 years.
 

 

If we ignore existing games and focus on games still in active development, the main win will be to emphasise the need to design games from day one to eventually function without online services, so that developers can simply flip a switch in the game code by means of tiny patch when the time comes.

I used a 4070 with a 7940X for a while, which is basically a slower 10700F in gaming (more cores, less clock). It's fine. 

The claimed FSR 3.1 improvements do look promising. In a recent game I did try out all the upscaling options and actually found the generic version of XeSS (run on NV) to be better than both DLSS and FSR. The artefacts of FSR2/3 are too much for me. Lack of temporal stability is what I find most distracting and that is supposed to be much improved in 3.1. BTW I found it important to see this in game. I actually took screenshots to compare image quality, and without that temporal element you will get very different results.
 
Even if FSR 3.1 becomes competitive to DLSS I don't feel that really changes the competitive landscape. 

The 4k versions will typically have a higher bitrate and should provide better visual quality even when displayed on a lower resolution monitor.
 
Here's an example of the most recent LTT video at 1080p and 4k displayed on the same screen with the same viewing window (2236x1118).
There's some noticeable difference around the face and hair. The eyebrows, cheeks, nose, and hair look a little smudgey and less detailed on 1080p compared to 4k.
 

there is more bitrate available to resolutions above 1080p and they also tend to be encoded in VP9 instead of h.264 so you get higher quality even at the same bitrate... so it snowballs into much better quality than 1080p, it's definitely not pointless